Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ampersand]

You know how when the leaders of countries do things we don't like, we punish them in various ways, via trade embargo and other such things in order to discourage bad behavior or encourage them to fix institutional problems that led to the bad behavior?

How exactly is it any different? If you want the Catholic Church to change, make it extremely difficult for it to make money. That's what this is all about anyway; bad PR causes a decline in revenues, so bad PR must be kept secret.

[Zangi]

I was under the impression Vatican City was its own country, it would set a bad precedent. If the pope can be arrested then why can't Barack or any leader?

Leaders do get warrants of arrest placed on them.  They can be arrested if they visit a country that has that warrant of arrest on them.

Its just you don't see it often, because leaders already get alot of slack... and normally, they don't break laws in other countries that would get them convicted in said country...

Its not bad precedent.  It is good precedent.


But...  right now, they really arn't going to get the pope for anything.  Basically just chest thumping by idiots with axes to grind.
What the Pope done, probably scandalous, but nothing that'll get him arrested.

They are better off going after the actual shotacatmen...

[ChairmanPoo]

bad PR causes a decline in revenues, so bad PR must be kept secret.

I'd go even further: In institutions in general, pretty much everyone knows stuff about everyone else. Thus, it is likely that when the culprits of this stuff were found, they were quite capable of revealing other people's secret stuff. This would bloat the PR scandal effect, and coupled with the fact that these guys have had free rein to do whatever they wanted for years centuries, they likely found it easier to hush the whole thing.


BTW: on what Zangi said: theoretically foreign leaders can get arrested, but in practice it never happens.  I guess that the prevailing view is that dog does not eat dog, because if we went around arresting heads of state, next you know people have all sorts of crazy ideas like making politicians accountable for their actions.

[Ampersand]

All I'm trying to get at is that there is no downward pressure pushing the Catholic Church to actually do anything. To the contrary, there is positive pressure for them to maintain the status quo and do nothing, because doing nothing has no consequences.

To put it in a more obvious scope,

Code: [Select]

Options:                Do Nothing   ,           Do something

Negative Consequences:  Bad PR                   Bad PR compounded by more in revealing previously unknown crimes,
Positive Consequences:  Bad PR will blow over,   Almost none because of the above

They do nothing because nothing is the least-bad option when measured in terms of maintaining high church attendance, revenues, and political credibility. This sort of scandal has happened several times before, and it's faded into the background din of living. Outrage doesn't last long enough for an institution that's existed for over a thousand years to notice.

[Bauglir]

Y'know, as much as I hate to say so, it really is a minor crime for the purposes of dealing with international law, or crimes against humanity, and what have you. You don't get shit like that coming down on you unless you did something like order priests around the world to molest boys at every opportunity. You have to have done something that will go down in (at least regional) history as one of the greatest tragedies ever committed. As horrifying as it may be that this happened to the kids in question, it's not on that level. Basically, to call it a crime against humanity, humanity at large has to be a victim.

Short version: if you can read through the names of all the victims in an afternoon, it's not a crime against humanity.

More on-topic, I'm unsure. Legally, there's no reason to arrest the pope. Ethically, I'm leaning back and forth (for this issue, anyway) based on which bit of evidence I've read most recently, so I guess I'll stay undecided there. The bit about the heresy declaration, though, probably works.

[ChairmanPoo]

The bit about the heresy declaration, though, probably works.

Probably not. They weren't declared heretical, strictly speaking, I think, and either way, it's not really meaningful in itself. The current scandal is far worse, methinks.

[Jude]

There also plenty of heads of state (and all kinds of other government people) that are responsible for way worse things than the pope

Including, necessarily, any US president, even if they didnt want to be

but I doubt Richard Dawkins would campaign to have any of them arrested, it's just a publicity stunt

Edit: to clarify it's because the US government is involved in supporting/protecting/allying with cronies and other governments all over the world that do things way worse than child molesting

[Bauglir]

The bit about the heresy declaration, though, probably works.

Probably not. They weren't declared heretical, strictly speaking, I think, and either way, it's not really meaningful in itself. The current scandal is far worse, methinks.

I meant in terms of being closer to a crime against humanity, although I'm still not sure it counts. Especially since the whole "burn the heretics" thing wasn't actually instigated by him, it really depends on how much, if at all, he was counting on it, assuming it's true. If, as you imply, he didn't actually do that, then yeah.

[ChairmanPoo]

The church hasn't burned heretics in a long time, man. AFAIK the last heresy trial was in 1826. Nowadays the whole heresy/excommunication/disowning thing is pretty much just a label. I guess that if you are a priest it makes sense to be worried about it because they will stop paying your salary (I assume). But otherwise it only matters if you take the whole thing seriously.

[Grakelin]

Actually, telling a country full of Catholics embroiled in civil war that one side is heretical is a far worse crime than what the Pope is being accused of now.

[RedKing]

Despite having major, major issues with the Catholic Church (not Catholicism in and of itself, just the organization) and not being a big fan of the current Pope, I think arresting the Pope is a bad idea. And that was my opinion even before I found out Richard Dawkins supported it.

Yes, sexual abuse within the ranks of the clergy is a major problem that needs to be addressed. Yes, the Vatican seems unwilling to admit and confront this problem honestly. But antagonizing the entire congregation of the Church and causing a direct conflict between secular and religious authority is not the way to fix it.

We settled this issue in 1648. Secular authority trumps religious authority within the realm of said secular authority. Hence, use that secular authority to prosecute the actual guilty individuals. I realize that the Church has obstructed this process to some degree by shuffling priests out of jurisdiction before their crimes are fully discovered so they avoid prosecution. Perhaps that's the bigger issue to address--pressuring the Vatican to make priests available to stand trial in their old parish/diocese/etc. If they refuse to cooperate, then use diplomacy and secular authority to work out extradition treaties. Eventually, the only place they could hide pedophile priests would be in the Holy See itself.

I think the bigger pressure on the Church to correct these problems is going to be the internal one--the fact that Catholics are leaving the Church in droves every time these scandals break. Ireland is going through a wave of de-Catholicization unheard of in its history. America went through the same thing a few years when abuses in the Boston diocese came to light.

[Vester]

We in the Philippines are kinda chill about it thought. I mean, for some reason our Priests aren't prone to this sort of thing at all.

The thinking that's going around is that it's more of a Western than a Catholic problem.

[Acanthus117]

We in the Philippines are kinda chill about it thought. I mean, for some reason our Priests aren't prone to this sort of thing at all.

The thinking that's going around is that it's more of a Western than a Catholic problem.

HOLY SHIT MOAR FILIPINOS YO

Also, I have to agree with Vester. I have yet to see any reports or rumors of child molestation here in the good old RP. Then again, everyone's fighting over birth control/the elections/corruption/the amazingly stupid people up top/etc.

[ChairmanPoo]

We in the Philippines are kinda chill about it thought. I mean, for some reason our Priests aren't prone to this sort of thing at all.

The thinking that's going around is that it's more of a Western than a Catholic problem.

ORLY?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2116154.stm

[Vester]

YA RLY

Note how the other "problems" mentioned are homosexuality and affairs. Our priests have outlets other than altar boys.

(and also there are some pedophiles. but we have less.)

EDIT: This is probably partly because in most of Southern Luzon, and most parts of Northern Luzon,  we don't actually have altar boys.